The occupation of a building by a Military Officer under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, amounts to occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924.

Headnote:
CANTONMENTS ACT, 1924 - S. 99(2)(F) - EXEMPTION FROM TAX - OCCUPATION OF BUILDING BY MILITARY OFFICER UNDER APPROPRIATION ACT - WHETHER OCCUPATION BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION OF "OCCUPATION".
Fact of the Case:

A bungalow in Ambala Cantonment was appropriated under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, and a portion of it was occupied by a Military Officer. The Cantonment Board assessed house tax on the entire bungalow, and the assessee appealed, contending that the portion occupied by the Military Officer was exempt from tax under S. 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, as it was in the occupation of the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the occupation of the property by the Military Officer amounted to user for a public purpose and also amounted to occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act.
Issues: Whether the occupation of the property by the Military Officer amounted to user for a public purpose and also amounted to occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the building in question was in occupation of the Central Government through the Military Officer whom it has permitted to reside in it. The Court interpreted the word "occupation" in S. 99(2)(f) to mean actual occupation, and held that where the Central or State Government after obtaining the lease under S. 7 leases it out to any person, it is itself not entitled to actual occupation but has to put the sub-lessee into occupation. In such case, it may be reasonably said that the government has ceased to be in occupation. However, in the case where the government after taking the lease merely gives a licence to some person to come and live in it, is entitled to take away the permission at any time and thus to come into possession itself.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the answers given by the High Court were correct.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : In an appeal against the assessment of house tax of bungalow No. 127-B, Bank Road, Ambala Cantonment by the assessment committe of the Cantonment Board, Ambala, three questions arose as regards the liability of the assessee on which the Officer hearing the appeal entertained reasonable doubt and accordingly made a reference to the High Court of Punjab under S.84 (2) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 for the decision of these questions.

2. Admittedly half of this Bungalow had been appropriated under the provisions of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act No. VI of 1923 on a lease by the Central Government and was being used at the relevant time by some military officer for his residence. It was also admitted that the assessment list was signed originally by three of the four persons who formed the assessment committee and was signed by the fourth member a few days later. The appellate officer set out these circumstances in his statement and then formulated the three questions thus:

"1. Whether the occupation of the property by a Military Officer under the above circumstances amounts to user thereof for the public purpose.

2. Whether the occupation of the Military Officer of the portion of the Bungalow appropriated under Act No.6 of 1923 amounts to its occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99 (f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924.

3. Whether the authentication of Assessment list in the present case is valid as required by the provisions of Section 69, Cantonments Act, 1924".

3. The appellate officer who is required by s. 84 (2) to state his own opinion on the points referred stated that in his opinion the occupation by the Military Officer, did not amount to user for a public purpose nor did it amount to occupation by the government and further that the authentication of the assessment list was valid.

4. The High Court answered the two questions in the affirmative and the third in the negative. In other words, the High Court s opinion is that the occupation of the property by the Military Officer amounts to user for the public purpose and also amounts to occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99(2) (f) of the Cantonments Act and that the authentication was valid.

5. Against the High Court s decision on the second question the Cantonment Board has filed this appeal on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court.

6. The assessee was not represented before us but we were taken through all the relevant provisions of law by Mr. Sen who appeared for the Cantonment Board. For a proper decision of the question in controversy it is necessary first to take note of the scheme of appropriation of houses under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, No. VI of 1923.

7. Under S. 5 every house situate in a Cantonment is liable to appropriation by the Central Government on a lease in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in the Act. Section 6 provides that (a) where a military officer stationed in the Cantonment or a President of a military mess in the Cantonment applies in writing to the officer commanding of the Station that he is unable to secure suitable accommodation by private agreement and no government property is available for the purpose and the Officer Commanding is satisfied of the truth of the facts stated or (b) the Officer Commanding is satisfied on enquiry that there is not in the cantonment a sufficient and assured supply of houses available at reasonable rates of rent by private agreement, the Officer Commanding may serve a notice on the owner of any house which appears to him to be suitable requiring him to permit the house to be inspected, measured and surveyed. Under S..7 if an Officer Commanding is satisfied thereafter that the house is suitable for occupation by a military of officer or a military mess, he may by notice require the owner to execute a lease of the house to the Central Government; required the existing occupier, if any, to vac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document